Evidence for God from Science

August: Because I think that God intervenes personally in people's lives...but doesn't intervene past ordination of physical processes. An example of a necessary probability: The laws of gravity necessitate that if you take a small object like a die it will come down in a certain position. The proba...

Of course they do not make it wrong. Motivation is a key ingredient to any type of research, scientific or otherwise. However, evolutionary models are well-known. You probably have heard of them in various forms: Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism. The difference is that you disagree with the evidence that su...

ID does not deal with the assumption of a supernatural force. It deals with the conclusion that you can test for design (be it natural or supernatural). I have no problem with this viewpoint. Maybe you can. As it stands though, there is no model nor any evidence to support the notion. Irreducible Co...

BGood: ID is not trying to include the assumption of a designer. Secondly, many scientists make this assumption anyways in helping solidify their commitment to the epistemology. Currently there are hypothetical models of how to test ID. It is possible considering there are numerous designed products...

August: Do I know this? No, I'm just offering what I think, because you had asked. I think you need God to set the system up, or there would be no system to begin with. I think you need God to help guide your life. However you are right in this respect, I think God could walk away and the Earth woul...

***So if "Metaphysical naturalism presupposes methodological naturalism, and not vice versa." are you saying that metodological naturalism is used to arrive at metaphysical conclusions? Do you start a scientific hypothesis by assuming that there is, or can be, a supernatural explanation?**...

August: To expound: God has implemented many natural systems that require no personal intervention. Our core biological processes seem to work under laws of nature that do not need constant attendance. Evolution is just one of those processes. Natural selection and mutation inevitably will bring abo...

I disagree. Metaphysical naturalism presupposes methodological naturalism, and not vice versa. However, given this, it is obvious that an atheist will find comfort in an epistemology that is skeptical of supernatural forces. Scientific assumptions don't seem to be anti-God. That the universe exists ...

August:

I believe Jesus existed. I find there is a serious demarcation (as most do) with the New Testament and the Old Testament.

Kurieuo: I have always felt that there is a strong anti-evolution sentiment in the general public. Most of this seems to be a personal distaste with the idea of sharing ancestory with primates. I agree that it should not be blindly accepted. However, I disagree that the scientific problems with evol...

August: Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it. Reconciliation: I have come to the view that the bible does not wish to provide scientific concordance. Explanations of anything in the natural world (be it the origins or mountains, animals, or mankind) are incidental and not truth-preserving in the ...

The epistemology of science does not comment on the existence of a God. It does not have a mechanism to do so. However, it cannot be denied that certain theories in science provide those with no theistic beliefs mechanisms to explain humanity's origins. Sometimes this is conflated with the actual fi...

I personally believe that advancing hypotheses with little scientific evidence into primary schools is a mistake. It would be revolutionary also in the respect that it contradicts generally accepted principles of curriculum development.

There are many individuals and groups who do not accept the explanations of evolutionary theory. This is prima facie obvious given the backlash against the idea of evolution within North America. That's fine - and should even be expected - because no one is required to accept every explanation given...